Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Faith can't help conflicting books of scripture but to put it in hell.

Click to expand...

I personally don't believe any of it, but we are speaking philosophically. Which sacred texts do we "put in hell"? And doesn't that statement implicitly acknowledge Christianity? Perhaps the Aztecs were correct in their faith and you aren't. Anyway, the very existence of other faiths proves that you are wrong when you say that faith would not exist if the objects of that faith do not, since you said yourself they are conflicted, and cannot therefore all be true.

Theists may think faith is knowledge, but I don't think they are the same. And some kinds of knowledge, like knowledge of climate change for example, aren't based on definitive proof, but rather a preponderance of evidence. An agnostic theist could have seen an example of prayer seeming to work, so they believe God did it, but they lack proof.

Click to expand...

My point was that Huxley himself didn't view it as you do. (I'm also not convinced the agnostic is demanding definitive proof) I understand and accept that definitions grow and change, but you're talking agnosticism on a fundamental level, and Huxley--the man who coined the term--did not view it as the answer to a different question, but an answer to the very same question. It was an alternative to theism and atheism, not a supplement to those positions.

Faith in an imaginative universe, I can make it rain pot, and summon fire.

Prove faith, and prove the naturally flowing, batterie linked, universal imagination. The imagination, are we a series of computers receiving ,and contributing to her network? Via faith, my imagination can link to yours.

Believe, like the wish to be here. Is that truth, is it biological? Or do we lie and say we enjoy our existence? Lmao. I can easily say I would not to wish to be here if I can't levitate rocks. If I can prove the wish bone, I can fly.

A little off topic, but a thread about positions of un-faith, and un-know is a little devious. Especially on a science board. A natural lie, or the inner working of the apocalyptic mind. You do believe, or keel over. You do believe, so Light too.

Faith would not evolve on earth, must have been born into a heavenly state. Or kiss his royal ass good bye.

I now know that you aren't a schizophrenic, just someone with behavior patterns that aren't recognized as "normal" by our culture at the present time. In the future, you may become president of the world.

I now know that you aren't a schizophrenic, just someone with behavior patterns that aren't recognized as "normal" by our culture at the present time. In the future, you may become president of the world.

Because it's a more diplomatic belief. An atheist usually is more of a militant in his beliefs that god doesn't exist. An agnostic will never come in conflict as he has the mantra "he might exist, he might not, what do you know". Probably agnosticism is a more logical and scientific approach to the matter of god's existence. However diplomatic beliefs tend to be rather boring and non-intriguing.

2. Do you agree in the idea of: agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's possible to be both. How can you believe that god doesn't exist and at the same time say that he might exist and might not? Then it should be possible to even be a christian agnostic or a muslim agnostic.